Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/26/2017 01:16 PM, Benson Muite wrote: > Will one be able to opt out or easily choose what information is sent? I imagine this will end up being opt-in rather than opt-out, but regardless of that, it'll definitely be easy for the user to configure what information they send. > What happens

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/10/2017 01:17 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > The more I look at lshw, the more I'm ambivalent (I'm not against it, > just not for it either). It certainly collects a lot of relevant > information. However, I see the following problems. > > 1. lshw tries to make things human readable. This

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/22/2017 02:23 AM, Benson Muite wrote: On 11/16/2017 06:39 PM, Justin Forbes wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Does Census collect info on the CPU the user has and which "flags" from /proc/cpuinfo. About once a year we have a

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/16/2017 06:39 PM, Justin Forbes wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: Does Census collect info on the CPU the user has and which "flags" from /proc/cpuinfo. About once a year we have a discussion on fedora-devel about for example

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:45 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Does Census collect info on the CPU the user has and which > "flags" from /proc/cpuinfo. About once a year we have a discussion > on fedora-devel about for example unconditionally using SSE2 everywhere, > and for

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/15/2017 05:45 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:> Does Census collect info on the CPU the user has and which > "flags" from /proc/cpuinfo. About once a year we have a discussion > on fedora-devel about for example unconditionally using SSE2 everywhere, > and for those discussions have CPU info would

Re: Reviving the hardware census

Hi, On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:49:02PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: Hey folks, For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0] and its intended successor[1] was never deployed by Fedora Infrastructure. It

Re: Reviving the hardware census

8. lshw only shows the USB interfaces in the current configuration. I presume because the kernel only shows this information in /sys. However, lsusb is able to show the interfaces on all configuration descriptors (it queries using libusb). On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Don Zickus

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 01:17:50PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > The more I look at lshw, the more I'm ambivalent (I'm not against it, > just not for it either). It certainly collects a lot of relevant > information. However, I see the following problems. > > 1. lshw tries to make things

Re: Reviving the hardware census

The more I look at lshw, the more I'm ambivalent (I'm not against it, just not for it either). It certainly collects a lot of relevant information. However, I see the following problems. 1. lshw tries to make things human readable. This is bad for databases. We want to record things like

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/09/2017 09:12 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:02:05PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: >> It isn't documented in F27, but it does work. However, we probably >> want at least this patch: >> https://github.com/lyonel/lshw/commit/135a853c60582b14c5b67e5cd988a8062d9896f4 > >

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Nathaniel McCallum > wrote: >> Turning it into a hash doesn't solve the tracking problem. It only >> prevents the attacker from knowing a list of serial numbers.

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > Turning it into a hash doesn't solve the tracking problem. It only > prevents the attacker from knowing a list of serial numbers. I suspect > keeping hashes of identifying information will likely cause >

Re: Reviving the hardware census

Turning it into a hash doesn't solve the tracking problem. It only prevents the attacker from knowing a list of serial numbers. I suspect keeping hashes of identifying information will likely cause controversy. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:19:04AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: >> Agreed completely. But I still need someone with experience using lshw >> to write a data processor (json => SQL) for that data. Also, we will >> need to

Re: Reviving the hardware census

Wow! You're fast at getting stuff upstream! ;) We still need a volunteer for the census side of things. On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:19:04AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: >> Agreed completely. But I still need someone with

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 09:19:04AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > Agreed completely. But I still need someone with experience using lshw > to write a data processor (json => SQL) for that data. Also, we will > need to sanitize the lshw output to ensure we omit identifying > information. For

Re: Reviving the hardware census

Agreed completely. But I still need someone with experience using lshw to write a data processor (json => SQL) for that data. Also, we will need to sanitize the lshw output to ensure we omit identifying information. For example, ip addresses on the network interfaces need to be filtered out. It

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:02:05PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > It isn't documented in F27, but it does work. However, we probably > want at least this patch: > https://github.com/lyonel/lshw/commit/135a853c60582b14c5b67e5cd988a8062d9896f4 And some beaker stuff looks interesting in

Re: Reviving the hardware census

It isn't documented in F27, but it does work. However, we probably want at least this patch: https://github.com/lyonel/lshw/commit/135a853c60582b14c5b67e5cd988a8062d9896f4 On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Nathaniel

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:09:26PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > I just looked at the code for lshw. The master branch already supports > JSON. We just need them to release it. Eh? 'lshw -json' doesn't work for you? I thought that was a supported output for a while now. At least it works

Re: Reviving the hardware census

I just looked at the code for lshw. The master branch already supports JSON. We just need them to release it. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:16:24PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: >> I just played around with lshw a bit. We

Re: Reviving the hardware census

External plugins? No. We are talking about internal modular interfaces used to separate the code conceptually. This allows us to delegate data collection easily to domain experts. It also allows users to choose, somewhat coursely, which day they report. For example, some users may be fine with

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/08/2017 03:18 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > I agree completely. My point is not that we don't need any planning, > but that the planing is scoped per plugin. Do we really need the concept of plugins, though? Are there going to be plugins that live outside of the census "core"? Will users

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 03:16:24PM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > I just played around with lshw a bit. We should totally make it export > JSON. We can then submit this directly (as one census plugin). Yes, that is how we use it to update hardware info internally to our Beaker instance. :-)

Re: Reviving the hardware census

I agree completely. My point is not that we don't need any planning, but that the planing is scoped per plugin. On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote: > On 11/08/2017 09:24 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: >> Here is why I don't think we need to have all the data

Re: Reviving the hardware census

I just played around with lshw a bit. We should totally make it export JSON. We can then submit this directly (as one census plugin). On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:49:02PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: >> Hey folks, >> >> For

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On 11/08/2017 09:24 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > Here is why I don't think we need to have all the data collection > requirements up front. Clevis is designed to be very modular. A data > collector plugin is just an executable that outputs a JSON blob. A > corresponding server-side plugin

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:48:36PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> [1] https://github.com/npmccallum/census >> >> [2] https://github.com/npmccallum/census/blob/master/client/plugins/ >> >> [3]

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 01:48:36PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> [1] https://github.com/npmccallum/census > >> [2] https://github.com/npmccallum/census/blob/master/client/plugins/ > >> [3] https://github.com/npmccallum/census/pull/3 > > > > Internally, we have been focusing on using 'lshw' as the

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:49:02PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: >> Hey folks, >> >> For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware >> users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0]

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 10:49:02PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: > Hey folks, > > For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware > users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0] and > its intended successor[1] was never deployed by Fedora Infrastructure.

Re: Reviving the hardware census

I forgot to post the link to the server-side of the pci plugin: https://github.com/npmccallum/census/blob/master/libs/census/server/plugins/hardware/pci.py On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > Here is why I don't think we need to have all the data

Re: Reviving the hardware census

Here is why I don't think we need to have all the data collection requirements up front. Clevis is designed to be very modular. A data collector plugin is just an executable that outputs a JSON blob. A corresponding server-side plugin parses this data and stores it in the database in an efficient

Re: Reviving the hardware census

On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Jeremy Cline wrote: > Hey folks, > > For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware > users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0] and > its intended successor[1] was never deployed by Fedora

Re: Reviving the hardware census

- Original Message - > Hey folks, > > For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware > users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0] and > its intended successor[1] was never deployed by Fedora Infrastructure. > > It would be nice to have a

Reviving the hardware census

Hey folks, For some time now, Fedora has operated without a database of hardware users have. Smolt, the old hardware database, was retired in 2012[0] and its intended successor[1] was never deployed by Fedora Infrastructure. It would be nice to have a hardware database, so I (and hopefully some